the question how do atoms, and proteins get to call themselves “I”s

is similar to the Godel thing where bunch of symbols in mathematics refer to themselves (in a theorem or something)

Tools for thinking

  1. isomorphism
  2. recursion
  3. paradox
  4. infinity
  5. formal systems

isomorphism:

  • two complex structure can be mapped as parts into corresponding where such parts play similar role
  • dont worry about the algebra definition

recursion:

  • everything everywhere fibonacci and shit
  • fractals

paradoxes:

  • veridical, falsidical, antinomy
  • Liar paradox: this sentence is not true
  • Russel’s paradox: barber shaves only people who dont shave themselves

infinities:

  • multiple types

formal system:

  • thats where we start

Formal Systems

bag of 3 letters {M, I, U}

pull 2 lettes MI

4 rules:

  • can attach U to the I: XI XIU
  • can extend next char if pre is M: MX MXX
  • can replace 3 I’s with U: MIII MU
  • Double pair of U’s drop away: UU (poof)

Starting with MI - can you get MU?

when you are solving this puzzle - do you think above the system (as meta thinking)

  • in life there are social systems and some people tell you to exit
  • communism, schools, matrix

The p q hyphen system

  • isomorphism to a single plus system
  • happy happy horse apple

goal is to derive isomorphic system to universe (is reality a formal system?)

  • elementary particles as symbols
  • physics as inference rules
  • question is - what kind of configurations are possible?
  • is universe determnistic?

Recursions

  • factorials and shit
  • something about fancy nouns as recursive? english is also that?
  • draws Tree using recursion and says it looks same in every graph - go zoom
  • Koch curves
  • if you add noise they kind of start to look like real structure
  • Sierpinski noise
  • iterative function system
  • Mandelbrot set: z = z^2 + C

Godel Incompleteness Theorem

consistency: if P is true then in the same formal system not P should never be True incompleteness: all True statements are provable. If you cannot prove something how do you even now that it’s true? geometry: Euclidean vs non

which statements are True:

  1. The sky is Blue
  2. 1 + 1 = 2 (but modulo arithmetic or 1 raindrop + 1 raindrop)

Hilbert said maths is the thing man

  1. Any system as powerful as numbery theory which can prove its own consistency is inconsistent
  2. And also incomplete

This statement is not provable

  • False actually provable
  • True whatever its saying is a fact (unprovable)

Euclid postulates:

  • 4 others
  • There is a line and a point not on the line, you can draw a line that goes through that point and never intersects the other line

Here comes the hyperbolic geometry (which are consistent system)

Something about natural progression/series but how does it fits here?

Back to things:

  • If recursion is fundamental and intelligent, why are humans bad at it?
  • Kasparov intuits

Meaning of language (out of nowhere)

Meaning is not inherent, rather a relationship

  • Apple has complex isomorphism in brain signals

Just ask Gemini lol